Of course, it was an idiotic premise to think they ever had:

U.S. intelligence agencies now suspect that Iran never halted work on its nuclear arms program in 2003, as stated in a national intelligence estimate made public three years ago, U.S. officials said.

Differences among analysts now focus on whether the country’s supreme leader has given or will soon give orders for full-scale production of nuclear weapons.

The new consensus emerging among analysts in the 16 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community on Iran’s nuclear arms program is expected to be the highlight of a classified national intelligence estimate nearing completion that will replace the estimate issued in 2007.

It was clear that the 2007 report was put together by liberal moles in the intelligence community who wanted to undermine President Bush – it was laughable to think that the Mullahs would ever give up their dream of nuclear weapons. To the mullahs, nukes are the way to ensure that no matter how badly they provoke us, we’ll never attack for fear of a nuclear exchange. And if you think it over carefully, for the Mullahs basic geopolitical strategy requires nuclear weapons – that they are insane and shouldn’t do it doesn’t matter. You have to think of it from the lunatic’s point of view.

The problem is that now we’ve got a President who has already shown himself unwilling to offend our enemies. The plain fact of the matter is that only by taking a calculated risk of war can we prevent an Iranian nuclear force from becoming a reality – and while I don’t think actual war would eventuate, it is something which may happen, and thus we need a President who can grimly look that fact in the face, and still do the right thing. Obama doesn’t impress me as a man who can do this.

And that means that Israel, if it wishes to survive, will have to strike…could be a very nasty couple years coming up.

Ok, the polls are closed. Still no results here at 8:08 pm Eastern. But one man is calling it for Brown. This is on the strength of the sniping earlier today between the Coakely campaign and the White House – you don’t get in arguments like that when you’re headed for a win.

Aaron is live tweeting from Brown HQ.

Looking ahead a bit – Boxer opponent Tom Campbell explains what he’d do about our national debt.

Joe Lieberman points out that a Brown win would change the political dynamic on ObamaCare. Positioning himself for what the Senate might look like next January?

4% in – 52/47 Brown.

Rasmussen says 22% of Democrats voted Brown.

7% in – 51/48 Brown.

29% in – 53/47 Brown.

52% in – 53/47 Brown.

65% in – 53/46 Brown…heck, I’ll call it, if no one else will.

CONGRATULATIONS, SENATOR-ELECT BROWN!!!!

And, hey, remember I called it at about 9:15 pm…pride of place for me. :o)

AP calls it for Brown…masters of the obvious.

It’s been nearly two year since I left Massachusetts for New York. Who would have thought then that a race of national interest would one day come to the Bay State? Not I, for sure.

Obviously, I have no regrets about moving. I am now happily married, and just as active politically here in Western New York as I was in Massachusetts. But, today, I am Masshole once again. As my friends back in Massachusetts fight to win a victory that will change the course of the healthcare debate. For what it’s worth, I am doing my part for Massachusetts, even while I am still here closer to Canada than to Boston. If I had enough vacation time, I’d probably be there now, but I will be covering the night’s event and returns at Hub Politics tonight, while my brother will be on the scene at the Brown Victory Party reporting on the action via Twitter.

it’s going to be an exciting night, folks. Let’s see if the people will get their back and send Scott Brown to the United States Senate!

Gee, wonder what we can talk about today?

Well, I guess we’ll think of something.

Hub Politics will be at the victory party tonight live tweeting the action…

From Scott Brown: An Open Letter To The People of Massachusetts

Via Real Clear Politics:

Let me see if I have this right: there have been six polls of the Massachusetts Senate race released in the last 24 hours, five of which show Scott Brown with leads of 5 points, 7 points, 9 points, 10 points and 10 points, respectively. Only one poll shows the race tied. None of the polls show Martha Coakley with a lead.

How then, you might ask, can the Boston Globe justify characterizing the race as a “dead heat?”…

…citing the most favorable poll by far for Coakley and suggesting that it is “consistent” with the other polls is such a blatant distortion of the current state of the race that the Globe should be ashamed of itself. That would assume, of course, that the Globe is interested in providing its readers with the truth as opposed to putting its thumb on the scale in favor of a preferred political candidate.

Typical media bias – and, of course, all our liberals will just ignore this and say that “reality has a liberal bias”. Reality? Yeah – the reality you get in a liberal fever swamp, that is.

With each other:

A couple of years ago an upstart black politician took on the establishment candidate and did remarkably well for himself. Well, at least until he was sworn in.

Fast forward two years and here we we have another upstart black politician gunning for the establishment candidate in New York and he’s not as well received.

Funny how that is. But Harold Ford isn’t daunted and is now upping the ante.

In his toughest comments to date, Harold Ford cast Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Monday as a “weak” puppet of the state’s political establishment who has failed to connect with voters after a year in office.

“There is no doubt that Sen. Gillibrand is weak in many places across the city and the state,” Ford told the Daily News in an interview. “At best, there is interest in hearing an alternative.”

Have at it, Democrats! But didn’t you liberals say that it was we GOPers who were having the internal battle? Oh, we were – once upon a time, you were correct about that…but during the NY-23 fight, we all realized that we’re on the same conservative/libertarian/independent team against the liberals. We lost that particular race, but we cleared a lot of issues up.

Now we’re united – and the liberals are falling apart.

Just, wow!

In a survey just published and available on the company’s website, but not yet publicized or reported, the left-leaning public opinion firm Democracy Corps confirms the dangers to Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections.

According to Democracy Corps, likely voters have a sharply negative view of the president’s health-care and economic plans, and a far more favorable view of Republicans than they did a few months ago. Because Democracy Corps was founded by Democrats James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, the firm’s findings have significant influence in national Democratic circles.

Democracy Corps surveyed more than 1,000 voters nationwide, including more than 800 likely voters. The group asked voters to identify themselves as “warm” or “cool” on parties or proposals. Fifty-two percent of likely voters described themselves as “cool” on the president’s health-care plan, against just 34 percent were “warm.” When it came to the president’s economic plan, 35 percent were warm against 49 percent cool. The findings are consistent with other national surveys, which show the health-care plan currently under debate to be widely unpopular.

Question: Will the Democrats figure it out? Continue down this road, and electoral disaster awaits. Right now, even if things go well for the Democrats for the rest of the year we can expect some pretty heavy Democrat losses in November – what remains to be seen is if a combination of Democrat errors and GOP efforts can turn a solid GOP performance in to a GOP landslide.

Well, think of this – Nevada is economically moribund, for the most part. Our basic industry – tourism/gaming – is sinking fast, our population is declining and our State budget is massively out of whack. But there is one bright spot in Nevada – mining. With gold reaching record highs, our mining industry is out of the doldrums and providing high paying jobs for American workers to produce American products. What to our liberals want to do with this one healthy industry?

Tax it out of existence, naturally.

Victor Davis Hanson gives a good account of why we’re starting to hold him in contempt and concludes thusly:

But what is taking Obama down below 50% approval is mostly a public awareness that they elected a deeply cynical man, who either cannot or will not speak the truth or keep his promises (note the Nixonian resonance in “perfectly clear about…”). In fact, it is worse than that — in the postmodern world of Barack Obama there is no truth per se, just competing narratives privileged by the relative degree of power behind them and the relative perceived moral intent involved.

So when the advocates of hope and change, of non-traditional America, of the poor and the needy and the more noble, say something, it must be true because, you see, it should be true.

While the steady diet of lies seems to please our liberals (they are mistaken about it, but they don’t realize the lies are what make them so incredibly nasty), they do less well with the rest of us. Its an insult to say you’re going to get those dirty bankers when you appoint one of them to the Treasury – even after its revealed he’s a tax cheat. Doesn’t go down at all well to be assured, repeatedly and on camera, that you’ll have cameras in the health care room and then not have them there. Its not liked when people see regular folks demonstrating and hear them called racists and terrorists by the government they protest.

Its all gone wrong – because liberalism is wrong. Based upon a lie (ie, the perfectibility of Man by human action), it cannot do well and may only be sustained by lies. What we have in the Obama Administration is liberalism writ large – but for the first time, ever, writ large in a society which has providentially developed a New Media to tell the truth (talk radio, blogosphere, Fox News). People are seeing it in all its ugliness, and are turning on it.

The results in Massachusetts will go a long way towards demonstrating where we are and what we need to do. If there is a Republican win on Tuesday, then it will show that even some people who voted liberal did so in large part because they didn’t understand what they were voting for. They were voting for sweet rhetoric, and now they see disgusting reality.

An MSMer advocating voter fraud, if that is what it takes to get the Democrat to win:

Radio Equalizer’s Brian Maloney captured MSNBC’s ED Schultz making a startling remark on his radio show yesterday about supporting voter fraud in Massachusetts, so Scott Brown would lose…

…SCHULTZ (23:02): I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I’d try to vote 10 times. I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right. I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.

They become more fascist by the day – and I expect they’ll become even more alarmingly so as defeat stares them in the face. Remember, they don’t care about us, they don’t care about the United States – they only care that they remain in power and flush with un-earned wealth….